On the Nature of Crime vs War - An Open Discussion on Terrorism and Censorship

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, a country where "It is against the law here to harm another based on sex, religion, race, etc, but it still happens" there is going to be the same level of brutality as a culture of people who "stormed Sinjar, in northern Iraq, murdering around 3,000 men and older women and taking thousands women and girls into sexual slavery, repeatedly raping them and selling them between fighters in public marketplaces."

you dont see the difference here?

that one blatantly celebrates murder and rape and the other publicly denounces them and does actually try to punish those who commit them?

are you saying that because some slip through the cracks here in america that we are just as bad as those who would make it national policy (if it werent for the fatc that they dont have a nation, only territory they have invaded) to do such things a s a matter of ocurse?

you seem to be making the case that america is hiding a deliberate and prolific campaign of genocide and sexual slavery

would you please provide some sources to that effect?

To be fair, comparisons like this tend to be entirely biased by the side of the comparison we each come from and can be based and huge generalizations. ISIS is not a "culture of people" anymore than "whites" or "blacks" are. Americans are not a homogeneous group of freedom loving patriots. ISIS is a group of individuals that share some common beliefs and motivations, not necessarily including blatant celebration of murder and rape. Some who identify as ISIS certainly do, but not all. Americans tend to share some common beliefs and motivations as well, not necessarily including shooting at cops. Some Americans do, but not all.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, members of ISIS, many of whom experienced the invasion and/or occupation of their countries by U.S. military and coalition forces, believe Americans to be terrorists. ISIS members stormed Sinjar and we can use this as an example of brutality, but in their minds (and sometimes in truth) the U.S. stormed their entire world and continues to do so on a daily basis using unmanned machines to do the killing.

"Terrorists" do not differentiate the way we choose to in our examples. Brutality is brutality. If brutality is thrust upon them by Americans, they are obliged to answer with brutality. It doesn't matter if the situations are factually different. It only matters what people believe to be the truth that motivates them. Some use religion and some use nationalism, but these are just rationalization for behavior.

ISIS is not a "country" capable of enacting any sort of legislation, so to say something is "illegal" in the U.S. means nothing in comparison to the actions of ISIS. Even if they choose to invoke some holy scripture as "law", it means nothing to those who do not recognize it as law. All sides are simply justifying behavior with their own set of beliefs.

That's why terrorism is not always about what is actually being perpetrated. It is about creating an environment of fear so that your victims believe you are in the position of power. Whether we are discussing rape, brutality by police, child abuse or military invasion, the victims will likely feel terrorized whether the action is illegal or not. That is why the original question concerning crime vs war is such a difficult one. What one side calls "war", the other calls "terrorism", but often they are one and the same. The only difference is the perspective you are viewing it from.

Leah Starspectre wrote: I think there may be a difference between men being the victim of violence and a man being involved in violent situations. That could just be playing semantics, though. I'm a very tall and powerful woman, but I still can't help but be on my guard when walking alone, or try not to meet eyes with a man who is ogling or catcalling me on the street , or try to slip away from a man who is being a little TOO friendly at a bar.

I think it's hard to understand the ingrained fear that many groups have: women, LGBT, First Nations, ethnic minorities....It's not the same kind of fear. It's one that comes from a lifetime of seeing the same harmful behaviour coming out of the culture that is supposed to nurture you. For some it's full blown fear, and well-justified, and in some cases (life my own) it's a more of a discomfort. But it's there and to deny its there's is contributing to the problem by not working to rectify it, and is ultimately harmful.

But that goes for all the points I brought up. If we don't acknowledge that the problem is there, we will never be able to improve it. I don't say solve, because I think that much of it is simply the dark side of humanity and will never go away, but if we can try to improve it, we're going the right thing.

No men are more likely to be robbed, assulted or the victim of a violent crime in general ( See section on violent crime by gender http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html) So to say that men are more likely to be in violent situations vs a victim is trivializing the reality that men are more likely to be hurt.

Further the fears of minority groups? I am bisexual and know the fear of gay bashing and the like so does my boyfriend. However that does not change that crime is on the decline meaning you are in fact safer then you have ever been. That means whatever fears you have are less and less likely to come to light each year. That is what I am getting at. Letting fears based on the random and unlikely rule you is not healthy. I mean I grew up poor and male two of the highest groups for being the victim of violence. I was abused growing up and have been robbed at gun point once. However that does not mean I let fear rule my heart. Just because something COULD happen does not mean its common. The fact is crime makes news because its not the norm. If it was the norm it wouldnt be news worthy. Its important to be realistic about our worries otherwise they eat at us and skew our world view.

MadHatter wrote: No men are more likely to be robbed, assulted or the victim of a violent crime in general ( See section on violent crime by gender http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html) So to say that men are more likely to be in violent situations vs a victim is trivializing the reality that men are more likely to be hurt.

Further the fears of minority groups? I am bisexual and know the fear of gay bashing and the like so does my boyfriend. However that does not change that crime is on the decline meaning you are in fact safer then you have ever been. That means whatever fears you have are less and less likely to come to light each year. That is what I am getting at. Letting fears based on the random and unlikely rule you is not healthy. I mean I grew up poor and male two of the highest groups for being the victim of violence. I was abused growing up and have been robbed at gun point once. However that does not mean I let fear rule my heart. Just because something COULD happen does not mean its common. The fact is crime makes news because its not the norm. If it was the norm it wouldnt be news worthy. Its important to be realistic about our worries otherwise they eat at us and skew our world view.

Sure, I'll agree that crime is on the decline, but just because it's happening less, that doesn't mean that the fear will automatically vanish. As a woman I have that discomfort of being the target of sexual violence (and I have been the victim of this as well), but it doesn't stop me from going out. The fear doesn't control me. But that doesn't mean that the fear has gone, and that others who have greater fear should be ashamed for having fear. Not everyone has that strength.

Look, I'm not trying to play the "who has more privilege" game here. I was trying to make the point that women have it rough (and no, that doesn't mean that men have an easy time), but thousands of years of gender inequality take their toll. And every time you respond with "Women are still systematically abused" with "But my life was hard and I'm ok!", you're undermining what feminism has been working to dispel.

PLUS it was only one aspect of several examples of violence in North American society. Why focus your displeasure on just one of them? Are you saying that rape and violence towards women is a non-issue when it comes to the problem of systemic violence here?

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: No men are more likely to be robbed, assulted or the victim of a violent crime in general ( See section on violent crime by gender http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html) So to say that men are more likely to be in violent situations vs a victim is trivializing the reality that men are more likely to be hurt.

Further the fears of minority groups? I am bisexual and know the fear of gay bashing and the like so does my boyfriend. However that does not change that crime is on the decline meaning you are in fact safer then you have ever been. That means whatever fears you have are less and less likely to come to light each year. That is what I am getting at. Letting fears based on the random and unlikely rule you is not healthy. I mean I grew up poor and male two of the highest groups for being the victim of violence. I was abused growing up and have been robbed at gun point once. However that does not mean I let fear rule my heart. Just because something COULD happen does not mean its common. The fact is crime makes news because its not the norm. If it was the norm it wouldnt be news worthy. Its important to be realistic about our worries otherwise they eat at us and skew our world view.

Sure, I'll agree that crime is on the decline, but just because it's happening less, that doesn't mean that the fear will automatically vanish. As a woman I have that discomfort of being the target of sexual violence (and I have been the victim of this as well), but it doesn't stop me from going out. The fear doesn't control me. But that doesn't mean that the fear has gone, and that others who have greater fear should be ashamed for having fear. Not everyone has that strength.

Look, I'm not trying to play the "who has more privilege" game here. I was trying to make the point that women have it rough (and no, that doesn't mean that men have an easy time), but thousands of years of gender inequality take their toll. And every time you respond with "Women are still systematically abused" with "But my life was hard and I'm ok!", you're undermining what feminism has been working to dispel.

PLUS it was only one aspect of several examples of violence in North American society. Why focus your displeasure on just one of them? Are you saying that rape and violence towards women is a non-issue when it comes to the problem of systemic violence here?

There is no systematic violence unless you are caught in a violent relationship or caught in a cult or something else just as unlikely. Crime of ALL sorts is on the down trend and the world is better then it ever has been. In my life I have been the victim of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, jumpings, robbery at gun point, and discrimination based on my skin color and sexual preference. Guess what that still does not mean because I had it bad that the world is a bad place. I just means I got really unlucky more then once. Did I take what happened to me a lesson and learn to protect myself yea I did. But I do not fear those things any more then I fear a house fire or natural disaster. Its not even the people who have been victims that I am worried about here. They have every right to have some fear and I hope they see past it some day. Its the people that use these things to make it seem like the world is some dark and terrible place when in reality if you live in a first world nation your life is going to be pretty dang safe for the vast majority of people.

Leah Starspectre wrote: PLUS it was only one aspect of several examples of violence in North American society. Why focus your displeasure on just one of them? Are you saying that rape and violence towards women is a non-issue when it comes to the problem of systemic violence here?

I don't think things are as you say in the US. The vast majority of women I know have no such fear. Maybe that's just coincidental, but I sure hope not. The only people I know personally who have these fears are usually feminists who have surrounded themselves with the concept of sexual violence, but as to whether they found that community due to their fears or if the community inspired their fears, or if the two aren't related at all, I can't possibly know.
With that being said, violence against anyone is illegal. We specifically have laws against violence against women, to the point where it's included in the name of the legislation itself. Rape is illegal. The acts of rape and violence are not considered good by anyone that I've ever met. The acts of rape and violence are not advocated by our government or our society at large. This isn't a systematic problem in America.
In Germany, however, 2000 men allegedly assaulted 1200 women sexually over New Years. The authorities, presumably not wanting to incite violence or hatred against migrants (who were at least primarily the people committing these specific attacks) covered it up. That is a systematic problem.
You're Canadian, right? I don't know much about Canada. Is it more like the US or more like Germany?

I'm not a fan of statistics...they're too easily manipulated. But this is what I found:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr06_vic2/p3.html

Perhaps something like sexual assault is better considered an endemic disease in society compared to terrorism being epidemic in its appearance, lifespan... and severity!?

TheDude wrote:
But they don't consider themselves to be rabid and thousands of their supporters don't, either. They are contesting their code of ethics against yours. Who are you or me to say "Shariah law is wrong"? It's a different code of ethics, sure. In our own doctrine, it says "... and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time." I certainly don't personally support it, but I don't think there's any moral high ground to have. Have you ever heard the phrase "villains are just heroes of the other side"?...

On the contrary I absolutely have the ability to judge the high moral ground here. I discussed this earlier but we as a species are constantly evolving our sense of morality. Now morality will never be an absolute but it will be an objective truth based on consensus. We as a species decided that the Nazis were immoral and we ended their reign, we as a species decided that slavery was immoral and we ended that. And yes we as a nation have done atrocious things and justified them for various means up to and including purely selfishness ones. The eradication of the American Indians are an example of that. But in the end we also realized we had done something wrong and reparations were made. In fact they are still being made. There are still court battles going on over the Sioux Nation and their claim on the Black Hills. We are not perfect but we strive in this nation to put the best process in place to make things as fair and honest and forthright as possible and that is a process under constant evaluation and change. The fact that we just gave LGBT Marriage rights is proof enough of that.

Do you think that LGBT will ever get those sort of rights under Shariah law? No they will not. In fact they will have their heads cut off just for being LGBT – no other questions asked. Shariah law is one where its participants embrace and even celebrate genocide, violence, oppression, bigotry, and racism. They are misogynists that couldn’t care less about human life and suffering outside their own small, petty perceptions of the world. Our bombs may have killed civilians in the past but that has never been a target in any military campaign the US has ever undertaken. ISIS, on the other hand, purposely targets civilian populations while avoiding military targets. They do this not in an attempt to win a war or gain an objective. They do it for the sheer pleasure of terrorizing others in the pursuit of continued, never ending violence. War is their way of life and they revel in that to the point that those that sacrifice themselves for the cause are held in the highest regard.

So yes, I can absolutely judge their way of life. It is wrong and morally corrupt and needs to be stopped. On just another couple of quick notes – the reason we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to target civilians. In fact those cities had not been bombed before in contrast to much of the rest of Japan by that point in the war. Because of that there were high concentrations of Military personnel in those cities in addition to military facilities and military factory’s. So those cities were, in fact, military targets. I have already discussed the Nazi counterpoint in previous replies but just to recap, the Neo-Nazis of today are in no way shape or form the death machine storm troopers of yesteryear and so the point that the ideology still exists is irrelevant.

There are always going to be threats to our ways of life and to us as a species. Violence and oppression and crime are components of our existence that will never go away. But we as a species do have the ability to see those things for what they are when they happen and judge them to be something we need to address. Sometimes we will have to use violent means in that pursuit. That is just the nature of the universe we live in. It is a violent one. Something has to be destroyed to make room for something new. We take on oppressive organizations like ISIS in the hopes that in the wake of their destruction something new will evolve, new ways of thinking and new ways of being, the hope that negotiation and compromise will one day be the vehicle that decides how we live and not war. But that can never be accomplished with an enemy not willing to sit down at the table. In fact they would rather burn the table than consider it a means to peace.

And, yes there are components of our society here that are less than desirable. Women are raped and men are assaulted or killed and children are sold into slavery. The difference between our society and the societies like ISIS is that those things are illegal in this country and we have organized forces in police and FBI etc to fight against them. In societies like ISIS they are not outside the law but the law itself and they are celebrated!

Are you actually going to try and tell me that I can witness the systematic and condoned suffering of other members of my species at the hands of these organizations and yet not be able to judge it as wrong?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
I have already discussed the Nazi counterpoint in previous replies but just to recap, the Neo-Nazis of today are in no way shape or form the death machine storm troopers of yesteryear and so the point that the ideology still exists is irrelevant.

The fact that the ideology exists IS relevant. What would happen if other powers didn't keep this ideology in check? They could easily become storm troopers again.

The ideology was not destroyed by force. We can stop an organization by force, but if the ideology still exists, it will lurk in the shadows, waiting to emerge again. Only by changing the ideology can we stop it.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Gwinn wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Gwinn wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You say we can’t kill an ideology? Was the ideology of Nazism killed? I think it was and it took extreme means to accomplish that but it was successful. Today we don’t seem to have the resolve we once did to do what it takes to accomplish a similar goal with radical jihadists. As for them not being countries, on the contrary they do occupy land and have established bases.

Note: Spoiler contains Nazi imagery and may be unsuitable and/or prohibited. Please view with discretion.

Hey when these guys march across Europe and reactivate the concentration camps let me know.. mkay?

To be fair, you were talking about ideology. These photos show that ideology is not dead. It doesn't take many to operate a terror group. These guys can easily make life miserable for a lot of people.

The point is that even though force crushed the regime based on the ideology, that ideology is not dead. In fact, it's hate and intolerance that allows it to spread.

and our culture so values life and freedom that we allow these people to dress in their outfits and speak their views so long as they dont actually hurt anyone

are we perfect? no

but you cannot compare the way that america treats non conformists (including lgbt) to the way daesh does

nor can you back up the implication that the western powers are anywhere near as brutal to our enemies or rivals either

there is a world of difference and if you cant see that youre blind

and daesh has declared war, openly

they literally say that they are at war with the west: is that something you think we should pretend isnt a real threat?

I'm not sure I see where I mentioned anything about daesh/isis or the difference between the way they treat people or the way we treat people. I am addressing the way ideologies have to change. If we want people to change the way they treat people here, we need to change the way they think. You can't force someone to do this. You need to persuade them. The same goes for over there--we can kill as many people as we want, but we will not wipe out the ideology with bullets and bombs.